Many of you have already seen this segment of Fred Thompson’s interview on Meet The Press today via Hot Air in which he gives his views on abortion laws:
Which he answered quite well. His federalist approach to the question may turn off some hardcore social conservatives, since he would leave the question of banning abortion or not to the states, but he answers the question without hemming or hawing or flip-flopping.
In fact the whole interview, some 40 minutes or so was excellent. He took some hard hitting questions from Russert, and didn’t whine…cough Hillary cough…and came out the other side looking even better then before. I put together a little 10 minute vignette of the interview with some of the other tough questions here: (The second question is on Iraq, not Pakistan)
And the whole 42 minute interview here:
Overall he scored some points with me once more. Like Rudy, he doesn’t seem to be reading from a script and came across as being knowledgeable and intellectual.
I can definitely see this man as President.
Other’s Blogging:
See author page
I’m still looking for a leader – not a politician – who will address the abortion issue in this manner:
Apparently, we no longer have leaders who care to discuss the sanctity of life anymore and who will publicly put their support behind measures that will grant protections to human life, before and after birth.
Nope. Now we simply haggle over federalism and states rights.
I came away with the same feeling you did. He was right on all of the foreign policy and security issues, with most of the questions presented by Tim Russert as Thompson’s quotes being fed back to him. And he stood by or corrected every one.
His explanation of his abortion stance was solid and made sense–only the hard-core will have trouble with this.
I hope people will sit through this interview. If anyone saw John Edwards on MTP a few weeks ago, the difference is striking. Fred understands what is going on in the real world, and Edwards doesn’t have a clue.
Fred! was good on MTP. He gave very reasoned answers and sounded like he had a very good grasp and good knowledge of all issues presented.
I’d vote for him, but a lot can happen in a year…
*sorry for the potential double post, but the page seemed to flip out when I tried to post last time and I don’t see the comment appearing yet*
Most anti-abortion followers probably wouldn’t mind seeing Roe v. Wade shot down as an incremental improvement. There are claims about the ‘benefits’ of abortion which are simply false. Abortion is more a promiscuity enabler than anything else. Allowing some states to outlaw abortion would expose the false or exaggerated ‘benefits’ and highlight the negatives. Right or Wrong, its not all peaches and cream.
In fact, liberals know their positions have negatives, but have always tried to bury them by pursuing nationwide implementation of policies so they can’t be compared and contrasted. For example, individual states implementing socialized health care is horrifying to liberals as it will expose its shortcomings to the rest.
All that being said, saying you’d like to see R v W overturned is a pretty safe position. Because that is entirely in the Supreme Court’s hands. Fred’s involvement would only be if he made a Supreme Court appointment. And when the time comes, and he picks someone who won’t overturn it, all he has to do is shrug his shoulders and say he’s as surprised as the rest of us or he selected the judge on his overall qualifications.
Essentially by leaving the issue to the courts, Fred sheds some of his accountability on the issue. In fact, for years, the liberals have been relying on the courts to implement their policies without liberal congressmen risking accountability.
OTOH, the abortion issue belongs in Congress and not the Presidency or the Courts anyway. Striking down RvW would help make that happen.
The big difference I’ve noticed in my face to face meetings with both Rudy and Fred is that Rudy is much more direct and to the point. Fred tends to ramble, and does cover more ground in one shot. But sometimes direct is best. I’m still making up my mind on whom to support.
P.S. Michael in MI: I hope you will take the pledege to support whoever he eventual GOP nominee is, realizing that ALL of the top tier candiates will do more to curtail abortion than Hillary.
Considering none of the top tier candidates can even come close to Reagan’s message of discussing the sanctity of life, I don’t believe that one bit.
It is plain to see for me that the Pro-Life movement is over. No GOP candidate even dares to put forth a message of the importance of the sanctity of life and eliminating the evil of abortion as Reagan did. All any of them do is pander.
Slavery, jim crow laws, women’s suffrage movement. None of these movements succeeded by choosing the lesser of two panderers. Switch out what candidates say about abortion for slavery, Jim Crow laws or women’s rights and then take a look at the pandering again.
Honestly, I now believe there is no difference between any of the candidates. All anyone keeps telling me is “vote for me, because I am better than s/he”. Sorry, that doesn’t inspire people to care. I care about issues, not working to keep politicians out of office.
I thought that the Democrats winning Congress in 2006 would destroy this country. It hasn’t. And I not believe that Hillary Clinton in office will not destroy the country either.
The problem is that Conservatives are being told to throw their principles and values to the wayside in order to keep Hillary and Democrats out of office. That tells me right there that the Conservative movement and the Pro-life movement is over.
And it disgusts me.
“I can definitely see this man as President.”
And I can’t see for the life of me how you came to that conclusion. And it scares me that you and many others find this man acceptable as the potential leader of the free world.
In my opinion, Fred was a total flop. He talked a lot without saying anything. A policy wonk this man is not. I can understand the appeal of his down-home daddy-talk, but that doesn’t mean he has meaningful or substantive opinions (because I didn’t see any from him).
I was actually amazed to see the difference between Thompson on MTP vs. Blitzer’s interview of Bhutto on CNN. Bhutto is clearly very educated, has clear opinions based on a life of serious study that she doesn’t shy away from, and is very good at explaining the relevant facts and logic behind what she says. It was quite the contrast for me to see them interviewed one after the other, and it made Fred look simplistic and not-really-qualified-to-be-a-world-leader.
When the (or, rather a probable future) leader of pakistan makes the potential leader of the free world look like an unsophisticated country hack, we;ve got a problem.
Please, let’s pick someone we can be proud of on the world stage… like Romney.
I could care less who the rest of the world thinks is the right person for the job, or how proud we can be of our President on the world stage. The fact that this matters to you is quite telling.
I care about the President being able to lead this country and protect it. I’m not sure which interview you saw because it certainly wasn’t this one. Fred gave substantive answers to every question. I understand your pulling for your guy (obviously Romney) but be a little honest in your assessment instead of trying to take him down a few notches with insults that your just pulling out of your hat.
Mike, tell me, did Reagan fix that abortion thing then?
The only real effect a President has on these kind of issues is putting forth judges to SCOTUS. His choices for the bench, Kennedy and O’Conner both banded together with the liberals to ensure Roe was NOT overturned in 1992. So while Reagan was an outstanding President he had no effect AT ALL on the abortion issue.
My main focus on choosing a President is who would lead and protect this country. Who would do the right thing even if the polls showed it wasn’t the popular thing.
So far Rudy, Fred, & Mitt come across as the most able to do those things.
You obviously are going to sit this one out because your a single issue voter. Quite sad but its your prerogative.
Fred said everything I firmly believe, I dont agree with the Gay Marriage thing but I am for States having more Control over things than Uncle Sam.
I like his stance on the war.
I just Love Fred and I sure hope he imurges as the frontrunner.
He isnt scripted and is a very honest man.
“You obviously are going to sit this one out because your a single issue voter. Quite sad but its your prerogative.”
So apparently the sanctity of life is a single issue that is unimportant. I see.
Reagan did not end abortion, but he inspired a nation to start discussing the sanctity of life. He inspired the Pro-Life movement. And then of course, Bush 41 and Clinton turned the country in the complete opposite direction.
It’s interesting to see people say that Clinton’s antics in office helped this country decline into moral decadence, but then say that Reagan’s efforts to do the opposite mean nothing.
If a President can’t do much about abortion, then there’s nothing to fear from Hillary either on the issue.
Until recently, when the Rudy supporters started getting belligerent and telling me that I better vote for Rudy and stop whining about abortion because it means nothing otherwise we will get Hillary… I was going to support the GOP nominee. But now, I am getting completely turned off to politics, because I see it is not about values, it is not about principles, it is not about jack-squat. It’s about bullying people into voting for your candidate, or else. And if we don’t vote for the candidate of their choice, and throw our principles and values to the wind, then we are idiots and foolish and ushering in the evil Hillary who is going to destroy this country.
Just once I would like to hear someone tell me that I should vote according to my principles and values and for whom I believe represents those principles and values. Instead, I get bullying and accusations that I am a single-issue voter and that single-issue, the sanctity of life, means nothing.
Well, I’ll tell you what, if that is the case, then my vote must mean nothing to. So, yes, I’ll probably sit out if I don’t see a leader with integrity and principles in the upcoming election.
And anyone who considers the sanctity of life a non-issue, they don’t deserve my vote.
Michael in MI: I’m very disappointed with your attitude. If you don’t think the 2006 election debacle was earth shattering, imagine a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress and a Democrat in the White House.
If you are so passionate about the abortion issue to the exclusion of all else imagine the kind of judges that Hillary would select and Democrats confirm.
Imagine legalizing partial birth abortions and repealing of the Hyde amendment opening the flood gates to federal funding of abortions.
I’m sorry, but unless you can take the pledge to support the eventual nominee, don’t ask me to consider your prefered candidate or expect me to give you my fullest consideration and respect for your viewpoint.
Fred towers above the competition. He had said he doesn’t do frantic, and he didn’t this time either. He clearly understand the trade offs in the Middle East. How many of his “competitors” would even go into the lack of human intelligence there? He clearly sees the substance and the image aspect of the “big war”, and how the Iraq and Iran conflicts relate to it. I don’t understand why it’s not clear to anyone who is interested in any issues than total and immediate Federal abortion ban that this man has the breadth, depth, and temperament to be the next President of the United States.
Unite behind the only man that can unify the Republican party and beat Hillary or another Soros puppet at their own game. I don’t want the distraction of being ambiguous on illegal immigration, inconsistent positions on abortion or various gay unions, non-mainstream religious beliefs (and I’m an atheist) to de-focus our attention from the main goal: to prevent the Socialist from taking over the economy and destroying the defense capabilities of the United States along with it. Vote for Fred!
“Imagine legalizing partial birth abortions and repealing of the Hyde amendment opening the flood gates to federal funding of abortions.”
Well, apparently this isn’t that big of a deal, right? Abortion is a non-issue, so I am told, and I need to get over it.
My attitude comes from being told that everything in which I believe is meaningless and I have to get over my values and principles and get with the program and simply vote to keep Hillary out of office. That is not inspiring. In fact, it is depressing. And aggravating.
So if you want to know where my sour attitude comes from, there you go.
How would you feel to be told every day that your values and principles mean nothing?
Also, I have asked this question in numerous places and have yet to get a response.
The 2004 Republican platform was Pro-Life. If Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, would the 2008 Platform then be Pro-Choice, since he is Pro-Choice? Or would the GOP have a nominee whose positions are in opposition to the Party platform?
The odds on Freddie Thompson winning the election are running about 33 to 1.
https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false#
People may SAY that they think he’s going to win but few will put any of their money on it.
John, oh well the odds were are little bit more in his favor a couple of months ago on intrade. Has there really been any new information since then?
Fred Thompson’s Federalism on Social Issues
Hillary Clinton should take notes from Mr. Fred Thompson here on how to answer tough questions. One admirable trait of Fred’s is that he has never pretended to be on both sides of any issue during this election. He has always claimed a federali…
Fred Thompson On Meet The Press
Bryan has the video, but this is relevant part that I want to address (begins at the bottom of pa…
Popularity: unranked [?]…